Standing Committee A

[Mr. John Butterfill in the Chair]

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

Clause 26 - Regions

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in
clause 26, page 13, line 4, leave out from second 'region' to end of line 5 and insert 
 'as determined in accordance with section (Regional boundaries)'.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
 Amendment No. 90, in 
clause 26, page 13, line 5, at end insert— 
 '( ) The Secretary of State may by order vary the regional boundaries set out in the Regional Development Agencies Act (1998). 
 ( ) It is immaterial whether more or fewer regions are created as a result.'.
 New clause 3—Regional boundaries— 
'(1) Before making any order under Parts 1, 2 or 3 the Secretary of State shall— 
 (a) invite all local authorities in England to submit to him proposals for the creation of regions for the purposes of this Act; and 
 (b) invite such other persons and bodies as appear to him to represent relevant interests throughout England to submit to him proposals for the creation of regions for the purposes of this Act; and 
 (c) upon receipt of submissions in response to paragraphs (a) and (b) invite the Electoral Commission to comment on the submissions and to make proposals to the Secretary of State for the creation of regions for the purposes of this Act having regard to— 
 (i) the desirability of all regions being of approximately equal size; and 
 (ii) the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities; and 
 (d) publish the proposals made to him by the Electoral Commission under paragraph (c); and 
 (e) make an order creating regions for the purposes of this Act, having regard to the proposals published under paragraph (d). 
 (2) For the purposes of this section ''relevant interests'' means professional bodies, trades unions, voluntary organisations, faith groups, political parties, business organisations and community organisations.'.

Philip Hammond: It is a pleasure to be back in these surroundings after the somewhat unfamiliar experience of debating the Bill on the Floor of the House yesterday. I am glad that we have reached clause 26 and amendment No. 89. It is a paving amendment for new clause 3, which goes to the heart of the question of the regional boundaries.
 The Minister for Local Government and the Regions has made his position clear: he is not prepared to engage in any discussion about the wisdom or otherwise of the boundaries that have 
 been chosen for these purposes: the boundaries of the regional development agencies. He resorts, rather scurrilously, to the accusation that the previous Conservative Government put those boundaries in place and he then retreats behind his reinforced concrete wall as if that makes them unchallengeable. However, those boundaries were put in place for a completely different purpose. 
 One conclusion that we can draw from the debates on the Floor of the House last night is that many colleagues on both sides of the House are greatly interested in what the appropriate boundaries for regions should be for elected assembly purposes. The size of regions and the need to create an identity in a region that makes it a real entity for the people who live in it were discussed. 
 The Minister tried to make great play of the conflict between the two criteria laid down in new clause 3(1)(c)—the desirability of regions being of approximately equal size and the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities—as if that were a fatal flaw in the structure of the new clause. However, it is no different from the requirements in clause 13, on the local government review, to have regard to certain matters. 
 Under new clause 3, the Electoral Commission would be required to have regard to the desirability of approximate equivalence of size and the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. Clearly, it would not be possible to meet both requirements all the time, but in dealing with one of the two criteria, the commission would be constrained by the need to have regard to the other. I hope that out of that tension for an expert and independent body such as the Electoral Commission would come a sensible compromise.

Nick Raynsford: How long does the hon. Gentleman believe that that process is likely to take?

Philip Hammond: I see no particular reason why the process should take much longer than the time scale already envisaged by the Minister. It would take a year for a boundary committee to do its work in one or two regions, if the Secretary of State were minded to call a referendum. I see no reason why restructuring the regional boundaries should take much longer. The Government's pragmatic objection is not a good reason to fail totally to deal with what anyone listening objectively to the debates in this Room and on the Floor of the House would agree is one of the two major objections voiced by Members on both sides of the House and on both sides of the debate on regional assemblies. The other is the coupling of the creation of regional assemblies with local government reorganisation.

Jim Knight: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is possible to redraw regional boundaries in a way that would keep everyone happy? Is not it the case that whenever a boundary is drawn around anything, people on the edge of it believe that they should be on the other side?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right, and the Minister says yes from a sedentary
 position, as if that is a fatal flaw in my argument. However, the right hon. Gentleman readily conceded to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) during last night's debate, and indeed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), that local government boundary reviews invariably create the same problem. In the end, no one is ever happy.
 The probable truth is that if everyone is completely happy, the work will not have been done properly. It is therefore a compromise, but what is clear is that outside the north-east, no one from any of the regions believes that the existing regional boundaries—south-west, eastern England, south-east, north-west, west midlands—are right. The process outlined in new clause 3 would at least allow a bottom-up consultation on these issues. I do not suggest that the end result will be that everyone is perfectly happy, but it will be better than simply taking inherited administrative boundaries, which date back to the second world war, and casting them in stone for ever.

Edward Davey: I agree. The present boundaries were designed for a totally different purpose. The suggestion made by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) that they could not be improved is nonsense. If we were given the chance to ask people in a one-off, short review what they considered their communities to be, surely that would be better than what the Government are offering us?

Philip Hammond: I agree. It is bizarre that the Minister does not seem to realise that his proposal for elected regional assemblies will not work unless he tackles two principal concerns: the first was voiced by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) about the coupling of elected regional assemblies with local government review; the second was articulated by many hon. Members about the inappropriateness of the regional boundaries. If the Minister genuinely wants a stable and enduring solution to the English question—a settlement that works for all England—he must deal with those two matters. We are talking about a constitutional change that may endure for decades and it is simply absurd for the Minister to say that it would take an extra six months to do it properly, so he will not do it at all, but instead will try to graft this arrangement on to England using boundaries that are as relevant to the communities and areas in which we live as are the colonial boundaries of Africa, which were drawn on a map by a bureaucrat's pen many thousands of miles away.

Lawrie Quinn: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If we have a Conservative Government after the next general election, will he confirm for the record that one of their priorities will be to consider this ''English question'', as he puts it, and to carry out the sort of review of the regions that he is describing? Such a review would obviously include London, as London is in England. Will he commit that as a policy objective of a future Conservative Government?

Philip Hammond: I am not going to say anything about London because I am not going to reopen the discussion that the Liberals and the Minister had last night about whether London was an example of city unitary government or regional government.
 The Conservative party recognises that there is an English question, which needs to be addressed following the devolution settlements in Scotland and Wales. There must be a reorganisation of the way in which England is governed below the national tier. We believe that that must be based on the existing established units and natural communities, and built upwards from the bottom, rather than downwards from the top, as the Minister would prefer. I can give him the assurance that it will be a priority for an incoming Conservative Government to deal with the issue, based on an organic solution that flows naturally from the communities with which people have affinity. While I do not think that it is necessarily the perfect way to go, the proposal to start from the bottom and review the regional boundaries from scratch is certainly much more in keeping with that approach than the Minister's approach.

Lawrie Quinn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Can he flesh that out a little? In my constituency, it has long been an ambition for Whitby to be included in the north-east. Equally, it has long been the ambition of people in Middlesbrough to return to Yorkshire. How would he sort out that conundrum, which will be replicated around the country?

Philip Hammond: As I was just agreeing with the Minister, this will not be an easy process but it must come from the bottom up. The solution is not simply for a Minister or a civil servant to sit in an office in Whitehall with a map of England and a blue pen.

Edward Davey: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question that the Committee has not asked him yet. Is he an English nationalist or an English devolutionist?

Philip Hammond: I am not sure that I am either. I believe that following the Scottish and Welsh devolution settlements the English question must be addressed. We cannot simply ignore England as if it is a rump.

Edward Davey: How?

Philip Hammond: One alternative is to ensure that our communities in England have a voice in their affairs in a way that makes them feel comfortable, not a way that looks tidy to someone sitting in an office in London or makes the Secretary of State feel comfortable. You would not, Mr. Butterfill, encourage me to digress, but another issue that must be dealt with is the involvement of Scottish and Welsh Members in affairs that are purely English and which involve the whole of England. Whichever route we take to strengthen the lower tiers of government in England, that issue must be addressed.
 If the Minister is to make his project sustainable and enduring, he must create resonance with the people who will live under the regime. At the moment the biggest impediment to that resonance is the lack of 
 any natural affinity with the regional boundaries. If I were a supporter of that regional project, I would urge the Minister to review the boundaries. I do not believe that it will work and endure unless he does so. The Committee has many other things to discuss and not much time to progress this morning. I do not intend to press this matter further now. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Edward Davey: I will not detain the Committee long. I am sure that we will return to this matter on Report. I wanted to offer our amendment to the Minister as a way to sort out regional boundaries. It should appeal to him rather more than the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), because it gives all the power to the Minister.
 We see in devolution and local government restructuring that the Government like to take a lot of power. Normally, the Opposition resist that. Normally, we believe that it is the job of Parliament and Committees to fetter the Government in as many ways as possible and to set down criteria and frameworks for them to act within. Whenever we do that the Minister tells us not to worry because we can trust the Secretary of State who is a fine chap and that it is all linked to precedent. In this case, we are giving him the chance to have the unfettered power that the Government have taken in so many other areas. It would help him to deal with the main problem, as he sees it, of reviewing regional boundaries—that it would take a long time. 
 The amendment would give the Secretary of State all the power that the Government need to decide how, when and if they would change regional boundaries. It does not require the Minister to do anything; it would not necessarily lead to an immediate review of regional boundaries. It does not require the Minister to undertake reviews of all regional boundaries at the same time. It gives him huge flexibility, which I would usually baulk at. The amendment was tabled to try to reach a compromise, to leave a little gap and to give the Minister a chance to think again, in the spirit of the season. I doubt that he will receive my present with such grace, but if he does not we shall return to the matter on Report and press an amendment in the House in a less generous way. 
 I had a little exchange with the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge because I wanted to tease out the Conservative position on the English question. His answer—the record will show if I misquote him—was that Conservative policy is to make people feel comfortable about their Government. Quite what that means—

Lawrie Quinn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: I will in a moment.

John Butterfill: Order. I was tolerant when this little piece of badinage first arose but it is not relevant to the matters under consideration and the hon. Gentleman should not pursue it further.

Edward Davey: As usual, Mr. Butterfill, you are completely right and I was completely wrong. Does
 the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) still wish to intervene?

Lawrie Quinn: I shall defer to the wishes of the Chair.

Edward Davey: Dash! Given that you have rightly closed down the debate, Mr. Butterfill, I urge the Minister to think about the strength of the amendment.

Nick Raynsford: There comes a time in the life of Committees when it is appropriate that they move to an end and I suspect that we are getting near to that point. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has just gone on the record saying that, as usual, he is wrong, something that he may regret having said. There was also an interesting volte face in the position of the two Opposition parties. That is a serious warning to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. When the Liberal Democrats are embracing the iron fist of Thatcherite centralism with an amendment that gives the Secretary of State power to vary regional boundaries by order, the Conservative party is marching triumphantly towards the Liberal Democrat Valhalla with an amendment that would provide for constant consultation, endless debate and no possibility of any result.
 The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said optimistically that the arrangements under the new clause should not take much longer than a year to complete—he later said only six months; the hon. Gentleman clearly lives in Liberal Democrat optimism land. It says that the Secretary of State must 
''(a) invite all local authorities in England to submit proposals for the creation of regions . . . and
(b) invite such other persons and bodies as appear to him to represent relevant interests throughout England to submit to him proposals for the creation of regions . . .
(c) upon receipt of submissions . . . invite the Electoral Commission to comment on the submissions''.
 We can imagine the enormous range of propositions there will be. How on earth is the Electoral Commission supposed to comment on them in a coherent and sensible way and then to make proposals to the Secretary of State for the creation of regions, having regard to two mutually contradictory objectives, one of which is that it is desirable for all regions to be of approximately equal size? Last night, to the embarrassment of the official Opposition, we heard about the position on London, which they propose to exclude from the process of allowing some individual votes in the regions.

Lawrie Quinn: Is it the Minister's understanding that what the Opposition are proposing is to exclude London, and therefore London Members of Parliament, from the constitutional role of the rest of England, which is where the logic—

John Butterfill: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that subject is irrelevant to our debate. It was out of order even when it was discussed on the Floor of the House yesterday.

Nick Raynsford: As I was saying, the Opposition are unsure whether London should be included—unsurprisingly, as it is three times the size of the north-east and if it is treated as a region, it cannot be
 compatible with objective one in the new clause. Furthermore, we have to take account of the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities.
 We entirely accept the desire to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. However, it is a bit rich of Conservative Members to advocate that when they made it clear last night that, if they had their way, they would not allow the north-east to proceed with an elected regional assembly on its own. If fewer than three regions voted in the supposed national referendum, they would deny the north-east the right to establish a regional assembly.

Philip Hammond: The Minister knows perfectly well that that has nothing to do with the definition of regional boundaries. It is extraordinary that he is making such heavy weather of the boundary review process: it is surely no different from a local government or parliamentary boundary review, in which the incompatible objectives of approximate equivalence of size and the natural boundaries of communities have to be reconciled. The boundary committee and the Electoral Commission routinely act on that basis.

Nick Raynsford: I was about to come on to that and to highlight the difficulties of proceeding as new clause 1 suggests. Before doing so, I wanted to remind the hon. Gentleman that it was he who spoke about organic solutions and building on bottom-up approaches, yet his party wants to deny the north-east, with its strong sense of regional identity, the opportunity to proceed with an elected regional assembly, unless several other regions also vote.
 The new clause is hopeless. It has no prospect of working, which is precisely why the Opposition tabled it. Everyone agrees that boundary reviews are not easy, but open-ended boundary reviews make a satisfactory conclusion virtually impossible. The right hon. Members for Skipton and Ripon and for Suffolk, Coastal both conceded the point last night—it was an interesting moment in which these former Ministers accepted that the Banham review was a mess—effectively dissociating themselves from their own work in office. Banham was a classic open-ended review without clear parameters. The new clause would open up precisely the same prospect—a nightmare of debate, argument, endless discussion and no action—so I urge the Committee to reject it. The Government's approach is to proceed in an orderly and pragmatic way. 
 On the Liberal-Democrat amendment, we have not ruled out the possibility of boundary changes at a future date. The White Paper made that clear, but imposing the boundary review in the amendment would not be conducive to our plans to proceed expeditiously and to give the English regions an opportunity to have elected regional assemblies.

Edward Davey: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us under what current legislation the Government have the power to review regional boundaries? On the basis of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 and
 preceding Acts, my understanding is that the Government do not have that power. Is the Minister intending to introduce further legislation to confer the necessary power on the Secretary of State?

Nick Raynsford: I have already explained that we have no desire to review the current boundaries. It would not be sensible because it would stand in the way of progress towards implementation of regional assemblies in regions where they are wanted. We recognise that the desire for such assemblies will not be universal: several regions will initially choose not to have them. The Government's approach is to allow people to decide. However, we have no intention of denying regions that clearly want to proceed—the north-east is often mentioned in that regard—on account of boundary reviews that will seriously delay the process.
 The hon. Gentleman's question is interesting. We have powers related to the legislation on regional development agencies, but we do not intend to begin a boundary review at present. However, we have not ruled that out in the longer term, and if there is a need for legislation, substantive legislation would be the right way for such changes to be made, rather than a paving Bill such as this. We therefore urge both hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Philip Hammond: Last night, one of my right hon. Friends observed that he could always tell when the Minister was defending the indefensible because his smile became broader and his expression more fixed as he was doing so. I also detect a law of inverse aggression: generally speaking, the more aggressive the Minister becomes, the shakier the grounds of his argument.
 The Minister must know that this new clause goes to the heart of his problem with the Bill. He would be on much firmer ground if all the regions were like the north-east, where a significant number of people would probably accept that the boundary is about right, even if they do not like the idea of regional elected assemblies. He is, however, on very weak ground, because he knows that in most of the English regions, perhaps in seven out of the eight, the majority of the public regard the regional boundaries as arbitrary and irrelevant to their daily lives. We are suggesting that that issue must be addressed. The Minister's only defence is that it would be an awful fag for him and his officials to get off their backsides and undertake such a review. 
 There is nothing magical about the review process. A range of propositions would be put forward by local authorities and other interested bodies in England. Any local authority in a region faced with local government reorganisation would be likely to put forward a proposition, so the number of propositions in the review would be an aggregate of those put forward in each region in response to local government reviews. 
 The Electoral Commission will have to comment, but its comments will not be unguided, because there are criteria specified in the new clause to steer it. The decisions will not be easy to make, but nothing worth doing is easy. The Government should bear that in 
 mind when they focus on how quickly, rather than on how durably and effectively, they can get things done. 
 The Minister says that the proposal would be a recipe for an open-ended review, but there is no reason to make it open-ended. A timetable could be set for the expression of opinions and for the reporting of the Electoral Commission. If that is the Minister's only objection, we can easily write such a provision into a similar new clause for consideration on Report. The Minister, however, prefers to proceed in what he calls an ''orderly and pragmatic way'', a phrase that is worthy of Napoleon. The Minister should not plead order and pragmatism ahead of democratic accountability when discussing major changes to our constitutional arrangements. 
 We do not have the opportunity today to debate this important issue to the extent to which it deserves. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends regard it as the crux of the debate about elected regional assemblies. I hope that, by withdrawing the amendment, we shall be able to debate the matter further on Report, when many more hon. Members from both sides of the House will be present. I am aware that there are hon. Members on the Government side who feel equally strongly about the issue. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Orders and regulations

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in
clause 27, page 13, line 7, after 'order', insert 'or direction'.

John Butterfill: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 81, in 
clause 27, page 13, line 14, leave out from 'savings' to 'as' in line 15.
 Amendment No. 82, in 
clause 27, page 13, line 18, leave out paragraph (4).
 Amendment No. 83, in 
clause 27, page 13, line 25, leave out subsection (c).

Philip Hammond: Clause 27 deals with orders and regulations. There are several issues that I want to touch on.
 Amendment No. 80 would include directions as matters that would have to be exercised by statutory instrument. The Secretary of State is granted a liberal use of directions throughout the Bill. As I understand it, they are not subject to any kind of parliamentary scrutiny. The system we have for scrutinising statutory instruments is feeble enough, but at least it is something. The amendment suggests that directions should be made through statutory instruments so that there would be a small opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise them. There is a worrying tendency for more and more ministerial action to be taken in ways not accountable to Parliament and I hope that the Minister would be prepared to accept the inclusion 
 of directions within the powers that must be exercised by statutory instrument. 
 Amendment No. 81 would remove the words 
''including provision amending, repealing or revoking enactments''
 in subsection (3). It is customary to have a schedule of repeals, amendments and revocations attached to a Bill of this sort, and indeed there is a schedule of amendments in relation to clause 15 only. However, I am deeply unhappy with the principle that primary legislation can be amended by order. We seem to build into every Bill a provision that allows the Secretary of State to do that. If there is a need to repeal primary legislation related to the Bill, I hope that the Minister's Department has already identified that need, and can spell it out. If it can, it should include it in a schedule. If it cannot tell us if there is a conflict with any existing enactments, we must conclude that the Department has not thought through the consequences of the legislation. 
 I hope that the Minister can tell us that his Department has reviewed carefully any potential conflict with other enactments, and found that there are no such conflicts. That would explain why there is no schedule, and why the words deleted by the amendment are superfluous, redundant and unnecessary—as were at least two of those three words. I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 81. 
 Amendment No. 82 is a probing amendment. Teasingly, it seeks to remove subsection (4), but it does so to probe the Minister on what all this guff—to use a word that found favour in yesterday's debate—exactly means. Does anyone, apart from officials who are not present, know what the Bill means by 
''a draft of an instrument to which subsection (5) applies would apart from this section be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument it must proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.''
 If a spade is a spade, the Bill requires it to be treated as not being a spade for the purpose of the enactment. I hope that the Minister will throw a little light into that rather murky corner. We were discussing yesterday the need for clarity in a referendum. Perhaps some clarity for Members of Parliament trying to decipher the meaning of the drafting would be helpful. 
 Amendment No. 83 is also probing and would remove subsection (5)(c). Paragraph (c) says that the subsection applies to an instrument made under section 129(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Bill refers to orders, regulations and directions and now mention is being made of an instrument. Section 129(1) of the 2000 Act makes no mention of an instrument. It refers to ''such provision''. The heading of the section is: 
''Orders regulating conduct of referendums''.
 So where has the term ''instrument'' come from? If the instrument is no different from an order, a direction, or a regulation, as set out earlier in the clause, why is it necessary to introduce yet more terminology? 
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie):
 Good morning, Mr. Butterfill. I am sure that as I comment on the amendments things will become clearer and it will set the day up wonderfully. Amendment No. 80 would mean that any direction-making powers introduced under the Bill, including those to amend or revoke directions, would have to be exercised by statutory instrument, hence the word ''instrument''. The basic direction-making powers of the Bill are the power to direct the boundary committee to carry out a local government review in a region and the power to direct the Electoral Commission to provide advice on electoral areas and the total number of elected assembly members for a region.
 It is not normal practice for directions to be made by statutory instrument. The power under the Local Government Act 1992 for the Secretary of State to direct the Local Government Commission for England to carry out structural reviews was not required to be exercised by statutory instrument. Nor were the powers in the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998, which are analogous to those found in part 3 of the Bill. 
 The Government fully intend to publish any directions made under the Bill and to deposit copies in the House Libraries. That commitment was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. Of course, under clause 15, the Secretary of State can implement the recommendations of the boundary committee only by order. This order-making power would, under clause 27, be exercisable only by statutory instrument subject to affirmative procedure. The same applies to directions given to the Electoral Commission under part 3 of the Bill. We would not be able to act on its advice regarding electoral areas and numbers of elected assembly members until the Bill enabling elected regional assemblies to be established were enacted. That subsequent legislation would, of course, also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. 
 I will now move on to amendment No. 81. Subsection (3) enables an order or regulations made under the Bill to include provision amending, repealing or revoking enactments. However, that is only where such provision is a consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provision or saving—in other words, for relatively minor matters. Any such provision would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by virtue of subsection (2).

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary seems to be implying that a consequential repeal of other legislation would be trivial, but if something in the Bill directly conflicted with the provision of an Act, presumably repealing that part of the Act would be consequential on the Bill. That would not necessarily make the repeal trivial; it could be a major repeal.

Christopher Leslie: My point was that at all times Parliament legislates in the context of the wider law. The intentions of Parliament would be made plain in any enactment of the legislation.

Philip Hammond: If the Under-Secretary, with the resources that he has in his Department, cannot put into a schedule the context of the wider law, as he calls it, it is a bit rich to expect ordinary members of a Committee to be able to be fully aware of any conflicts with existing legislation.

Christopher Leslie: I was very careful to talk about the intentions of the legislation. Those will be quite clear in the decisions that we will make in this legislative context. All that we are seeking to do through the provision is to remove doubt. Amendment No. 81 would remove, or at least put in doubt, the ability to make those consequential incidental changes.
 I shall give an example of why the provision is necessary. The schedule to clause 15 makes consequential amendments to other Acts, as the hon. Runnymede and Weybridge said. They are minor amendments to take account of the enactment of the Bill. If we discovered in a few years' time that consequential amendments of a similar nature needed to be made to another Act that we have missed in the schedule, we would need the power to do so, and subsection (3) provides that. This is a precedented provision, which can be found in section 26(4) of the Local Government Act 1992. 
 As the hon. Gentleman teasingly said, amendments Nos. 82 and 83 test what we mean by hybridity, or the hybrid procedure. Subsection (4) ensures that the hybrid procedure for affirmative resolution instruments does not apply to certain orders or regulations made under the Bill or to any provision made under section 129(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 for referendums held under the Bill. Section 129(1) is the power to make by order provision for, or in connection with, regulating the conduct of referendums. Amendment No. 82 would remove subsection (4) from the Bill, which would mean that subordinate legislation under the Bill, where it may be hybrid, could be subject to the hybrid procedure. 
 Amendment No. 83 is a free-standing amendment that would mean that an order made under section 129(1) for the purpose of referendums held under the Bill would, were it hybrid, be subject to the procedure for making hybrid instruments.

Philip Hammond: Can the Under-Secretary give an example of how an order made under the Bill is likely to be hybrid?

Christopher Leslie: I can. Indeed, I was about to come to that in my peroration. It might be helpful if I explained the purposes behind subsections (4) and (5).
 An order under part 1 of the Bill could possibly be considered a hybrid instrument if, for example, it set a different referendum date and referendum period for different regions or if it were made under clause 15 and implemented different proposals for local government reorganisation in different regions. We do not consider that those differences are of a nature that justifies the use of the more complex and lengthy hybrid procedure. The best analogy to make—the hon. Gentleman may be familiar with this—is the hybrid procedure for public and private Bills and the various mixed arrangements that can apply in relation to a 
 hybrid Bill, which are very similar in the case of statutory instruments.

Philip Hammond: I may be on the wrong track here, but is there a difference in procedure in terms of parliamentary scrutiny, and the timetabling of such scrutiny, depending on whether a matter is hybrid?

Christopher Leslie: There is indeed a difference in respect of hybrid legislation. I shall try to elucidate as simply as I possibly can by reference to private Bills. Those tend to be promoted by the presenter of a petition who is seeking specific, usually local, powers, and follow a procedure of more lengthy examination by Parliament, which, unless completely unopposed, involves the taking of evidence and so forth. Hybrid Bills are public Bills to which elements of the private Bill procedure may apply. For that reason, we are taking the lead of a similar provision in section 26(2) of the Local Government Act 1992.
 With regard to orders made under section 129(1) of the PPERA, we intend to apply the same provision to all referendums on establishing a regional assembly, subject to the possibility of general change over time as new voting methods are established. That might indicate that applying subsection (4) to conduct orders is unnecessary because hybridity, by definition, could occur only if we had at least one order making different provisions for different regions. However, the subsection is needed for certainty reasons. Regional referendums will not all take place at the same time; it may be several years before some regions become interested in a referendum. We cannot predict what a conduct order might look like in five or 10 years' time or how parliamentary conventions or other circumstances might have changed. 
 The question of hybridity is difficult to judge. I have explained the circumstances, in the context of the Bill, in which it could arise. I hope that hon. Members accept that our intent is not sinister; rather, we seek practical measures to tackle issues that could arise. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: The Under-Secretary has obviously decided to try a different tactic this morning: he is boring the Opposition into submission by rehearsing what could be a text on parliamentary procedure—but I probably asked for it.
 I accept much of what he says, but I cannot help thinking that the question of whether a matter is hybrid ought to be dealt with in the usual way by the proper authorities when a matter comes before the House. I find it rather objectionable that we have different procedures for private and public matters and for hybrid matters, and that the Government seek to pre-empt the proper assessment of whether something is hybrid.

Christopher Leslie: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I did refer to a similar provision in the Local Government Act 1992 that was introduced by the previous Conservative Administration to clarify whether an issue should be dealt with under the hybrid procedure.

Philip Hammond: It may come as a shock to the Under-Secretary, but I do not believe that my brief is to defend everything that was done by the previous Conservative Administration. We learn, and one thing we have learned that is relevant to the discussions of the Committee is that change in local government arrangements will not be durable and sustainable unless it is rooted at the bottom rather than passed down from the top. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions referred to comments by colleagues who were very much involved in such matters in the past. I do not take it as an absolute that I am required to stand here and defend something that was done before 1997. Instead, I shall consider whether a provision is sensible, as I expect the Under-Secretary to do.
 However, in view of what the Under-Secretary said and the fact that, essentially, these probing amendments were meant to establish the precise meaning and relevance of the issues, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Expenditure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: I return to a debate that began when we were considering clause 17 and which you directed, Mr. Butterfill, should be completed when we arrived at clause 28. I must confess that at the time I did not realise that you were doing me a huge favour. I have taken the opportunity in the intervening period to consider much more carefully the issues that were touched on in the few exchanges that we had before you closed the debate, and have realised that the position is even more bizarre than I had understood.
 The Under-Secretary told the Committee that the estimate for the cost of boundary committee reviews ranged from £750,000 to £1 million; that is, that the cost of the review for the smallest region would be 75 per cent. of the cost for the largest region. He assured the Committee that that was based on the boundary committee's estimates for carrying out reviews in all the regions of England. 
 I had in my mind that we were talking about the north-east region, with a population of 2.5 million and the south-east region with a population of 8 million. However, when I looked again, I saw that the ratios were yet more dramatic because the costs of the boundary committee reviews will be driven not so much by a region's population as by the number of two-tier authorities that need to be re-organised in that region. As the Under-Secretary well knows, the Yorkshire and Humber region has one county and nine district councils; the south-east region has seven county and 55 district councils. 
 The Under-Secretary is asking us to believe that a boundary review in the Yorkshire and Humber region, with nine districts, will cost £750,000 and that one in 
 the south-east region, with 55 districts, will cost £1 million. Either he has got it wrong—I suspect that he has, and that the question considered by the boundary committee has been how much the first batch, which presumably will not include the south-east region, will cost—or this raises a very serious issue of public expenditure. If it is the latter, and the Under-Secretary is really saying that a review will cost about 10 times as much in the Yorkshire and Humber region as in the south-east region, I will want to refer that to the Public Accounts Committee for consideration. Although the expenditure has not yet been incurred, surely when Members of Parliament see such an apparently outrageous misuse of public money, it is appropriate that they draw it to the attention of the proper authorities before, rather than after, that money is spent.

Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Hammond: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, to allow the Under-Secretary to take his instructions completely from the Minister for Local Government and the Regions before I sit down.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point, but I am not sure whether the Public Accounts Committee would be the correct Committee to deal with that matter. I should have thought that that would be the Select Committee for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which should examine estimates that relate to that Department.

Philip Hammond: If that is right, I stand corrected. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall take the necessary advice, if that appears to be appropriate after I have heard the Under-Secretary's reply.

Christopher Leslie: I do not take instructions from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, but I take advice from him. In all such matters, he is helpful not only to the Committee but to his close and friendly colleagues. He has reminded me of a matter that had not escaped me but of which the Committee should also, perhaps, be reminded. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge proposed, through his amendments, not only a review of all the English regional boundaries but an all-England referendum. If he is now worried about costs and the expense involved in such arrangements, we should return to his statement at the outset of the Committee's debates about the mutually incompatible amendments that he said that he would table. He is now also making mutually incompatible arguments.

Edward Davey: When the Under-Secretary served on a Committee that considered the Finance Bill as a Back Bencher, he always had House of Commons costings for the Opposition parties' amendments. Does he have the particular costing, either from the House of Commons Library or from his Department, for that amendment?

Christopher Leslie: I do not yet have that costing, but it is worth keeping a tally of all the various spending commitments involved not only in Conservative amendments, but in Liberal Democrat amendments.
 I am afraid that the estimate that I have on the cost of local government reviews stands as it did when I explained it to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge under an earlier clause—a range of between £750,000 and £1 million per region. I understand that there are good reasons for that.

Philip Hammond: As the Under-Secretary has had the opportunity since we first touched on the matter on Tuesday to take further advice, as have I, can he tell the Committee whether he has reviewed and checked those figures since then and asked the boundary committee again whether it stands by that estimated range for all the regions of England?

Christopher Leslie: I have not completely revisited our correspondence with the Electoral Commission, but that was the advice that we received from it. The boundary committee's initial estimate stands. It shows what it thinks the costs would be. It is working out its cost estimates in greater detail. We will discuss those with it in due course, after which we will know more precisely about costs. I do not exclude the possibility that the cost may be more or less than the range that we have been given to date by that committee.

Matthew Green: Is not the truth of the estimates that they are intended only for the north-east and, perhaps, the north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside? The Government are introducing the Bill, but they intend the provision to cover only a couple of regions, forgetting about the rest of England.

Christopher Leslie: Absolutely not. The Conservatives might concur with the hon. Gentleman's comment. However, the sinister interpretation that we are considering only small regions or northern ones—the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said the same thing—is negated to some extent by the variance between populations in the north-east and north-west, as the latter is one of the largest regions in the country.
 Subsection (1) requires 
''any expenditure of a Minister of the Crown in connection with a referendum held''
 under the Bill, any expenditure granted by the Secretary of the State to the Electoral Commission for local reviews or advice it might give under part 3, and any grants paid to regional chambers under clause 23 to be paid out of money provided by Parliament. The subsection similarly requires the following to be paid out of money provided by Parliament: 
''any expenditure of the Secretary of State in preparation for elected regional assemblies'',
 any expenditure in connection with
''the transfer of any functions to''
 an elected assembly and 
''any increase attributable to this Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.''
 Subsection (2) requires that any sums required to meet the expenditure of the Electoral Commission under an order made under clause 9—that will include money for paying counting officers or reimbursing local authorities for any increase in the superannuation contributions—are to be paid out of the consolidated fund.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has not dealt with the issue. I am a little surprised that he has not returned to review it with the boundary committee since Tuesday. I have heard what he has said, and perhaps we shall return to the matter in due course.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Phil Woolas: On a point of order, Mr. Butterfill, I should like to move that the Committee be suspended for the Programming Sub-Committee to consider the timings of Report and Third Reading should the Committee duly report.

Hon. Members: No.

John Butterfill: I am advised by the Clerk that suspension is at my discretion. I rule that the Committee be suspended for 10 minutes until four minutes past 10. Will everyone withdraw except those in the Programming Sub-Committee?
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming 
 Resolved, 
That the Programming Sub-Committee recommends that the programme order of 26 November 2002 in relation to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill be amended as follows— 
 In paragraph 7 of the order, for ''one hour'' there is substituted ''two hours''.—[Mr. Leslie.]

New Clause 2 - Assistance for designated organisations

'(1) This section applies where the Electoral Commission has made any designations under section 108 of the 2000 Act in respect of a referendum held pursuant to section 1. 
 (2) The amount designated in subsection 110(2) of the 2000 Act shall, for the purposes of any grant made in connection with a referendum held pursuant to section 1, be £600,000 divided by the population of the United Kingdom, the resultant multiplied by the population of the region in which the referendum is to be held.'. [Mr. Hammond.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 New clause 2 deals with grants made under the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to designated organisations. The Act states that the maximum grant is £600,000, but in previous exchanges the Minister acknowledged that that is intended to be the maximum grant in relation to a nationwide referendum. Clearly, it is not appropriate that such a grant should be paid in relation to a regional referendum. The new clause proposes that the £600,000 maximum limit should be divided by the population of the United Kingdom and multiplied by the population of the region in question to arrive at a maximum figure of grant. That seems to be a fair and appropriate way in which to proceed. 
 The Minister may have an alternative suggestion, but I am keen that there should be an objective way of 
 setting the limit for a regional campaign and not simply a fudge under which the Government say that they will think about the matter and do something that seems okay at the time. There will be concern about how the limits are set, especially if the first campaigns are held in relatively small regions, and I urge the Minister to think about the advantages, even from his point of view, of having clear and objective definitions of the spending limits. The new clause refers to public money and limits on the amount of public grant, not just to setting limits for the expenditure of private money. 
 In the closing moments of the Committee, I reiterate the arguments about the spending of public money that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) raised in Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) raised on the Floor of the House last night in relation to the north-west regional assembly. I hope that the Minister can assure the Committee that he will investigate the issues raised by both hon. Members. Perhaps he would go so far as to write to all Committee members with his conclusions so that we are aware, before Report, of what has been going on in the north-west region.

Edward Davey: I support the new clause, at least in its purpose. It is right that there should be a limit on the amount of public money that is paid to designated organisations in referendum campaigns. I hope that this debate will clarify whether the figure is the right amount. In his response, the Minister must explain the Government's current intentions or what other proposals are likely be put before the House before a referendum is held.
 It is important that election expenditure, whether for a referendum or any other election, is controlled and we have overall sympathy with the direction of the new clause of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. My only concern is whether there are any fixed costs that should be recognised for smaller regions.

Philip Hammond: I accept that there may be fixed costs, but we are not setting a total limit to expenditure; we are setting a limit to public grant to bodies that one would expect primarily to be privately financed.

Edward Davey: I accept that, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also accept that political parties and other legitimate organisations have fixed costs. I do not want to quibble about the point too much because I accept his basic thrust. I should like to hear what the Minister says, however, and perhaps engage in further debate.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made some questionable points about new clause 2. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge explained that it would limit the amount of assistance to each designated organisation in a yes or no campaign to a proportion, which would depend on the population of the region concerned, of £600,000.
 The Government do not think that a separate statutory limit is needed for grants to designated yes or no campaigns for regional referendums because the 
 Commission's proposed expenditure on grants would be scrutinised by Parliament. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge says that he does not want unspecific legislation on the matter, but Parliament is capable of scrutinising the expenditure of the Electoral Commission. The Speaker's Committee is tasked with that particular job by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, schedule 1(14)(3) of which charges the Speaker's Committee with satisfying itself that the Commission's estimated level of expenditure for each financial year is consistent with the economical, efficient and effective discharge of its functions. We can rely on the commission to make the right judgment on the amount of grant that might go to a designated yes or no campaign. 
 While grants may vary from region to region, they should not only be proportional to population, which is a point that we explained in a slightly different context when we were discussing amendments to clause 11. The Committee accepted the argument that although relative population levels could be a factor in setting such limits, only having regard to them would be too narrow a focus. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton mentioned, there may well be other factors to which the commission might properly have regard, such as a region's rural and urban populations, the different types of media available to designated yes or no campaigns and economies or diseconomies of scale. One of the main issues is the fixed costs associated with campaigns.

Philip Hammond: I am anxious to draw out from the Under-Secretary whether he would take into account when fixing a grant level in a region the likely level of private funding available, which is the key issue.

Christopher Leslie: Whether I would take private funding into account is secondary to the judgments of the Speaker's Committee, Parliament and the Electoral Commission, which may consider that particular factor. That is one reason why a designated amount per head is too crude a system.

Philip Hammond: I asked the hon. Gentleman the question in his capacity as a spokesman for the Government because the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is a member of the Speaker's Committee—for all I know, other Ministers may also be members of it. Will the hon. Gentleman advise the Committee what the Minister thinks about private funding?

Christopher Leslie: Would it be so simple that I could always advise on what people may or may not think should they at some point in the future be determining some question while sitting on the Speaker's Committee scrutinising Electoral Commission expenditure. We cannot know that because we have not seen the proposals from any putative yes or no campaign, and it would not be right to prejudge such proposals. All I am saying is that many different factors could come into play in the amount of grant assistance that might be designated by the Electoral Commission to a yes or no campaign.

Matthew Green: I accept what the Under-Secretary is saying, but does not he believe that there should still be a maximum, beyond which it does not go? We have a maximum for a national campaign, so even if we set up half the amount given to a national campaign, or something similarly generous, we should at least issue guidance so that there is a limit on the potential public expenditure.

Christopher Leslie: I do not honestly believe that that would be necessary. There is a limit of £600,000 on any referendum arrangement. It is not a blank cheque, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton says. It is also slightly insulting to the Electoral Commission, as it is to the Committee, to suggest that it would always run right up to that limit. We can rely on the commission to judge the matter prudently.

Edward Davey: Last night, on the Floor of the House, the Minister objected to a proposal made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that the Electoral Commission should write the question. In Committee, the Minister is saying that the commission can decide how much money to spend. Surely, the Government are getting the issues the wrong way round. Independence on electoral issues is perhaps the job of the Electoral Commission. Considering how to spend taxpayers' money is a job for this place.

Christopher Leslie: Indeed, it is the job of Parliament to scrutinise the expenditure of the Electoral Commission, which it can do in the usual way. If Ministers interfered in that role, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton would be the first to complain. The 2000 Act clearly sets out the context and expenditure that the Electoral Commission can incur. Those limits are there and it would not be right, as in new clause 2, to designate expenditure simply per head of population.
 I explained other factors that might be relevant. I believe that we can rely on and trust the Electoral Commission to make its judgment fairly, efficiently and economically. I urge the Committee to reject new clause 2.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton expressed the hope that the short debate would flush out from the Under-Secretary which level he believed to be the right one, although the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the amendment might not have got it absolutely right. However, the Under-Secretary did not reply that it should be a certain fixed amount and an additional proportional amount, or some other formula. Instead, he said nothing at all other than that we should trust the arrangements as they are set out in the Bill, which limit the expenditure to £600,000; that is, £600,000 per designated organisation, which could mean £1.2 million of public money in each of eight regions. The Under-Secretary's response is inadequate, and I urge my hon. Friends to support the new clause in the absence of any satisfactory response from him.
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

Nick Raynsford: Before we come to an appropriate ending to our proceedings, I want to say how productive and enjoyable the debate, although short, has been. We have covered issues that are fundamental to the future of our country and our constitutional settlement, such as how we continue the devolution process, which has been a key theme of the Government's programme in the past five and a half years. We have also covered issues of less far-reaching importance but of great interest, notably the appropriate word with which to start a sentence.
 During our deliberations, the opinion poll ratings of the two Opposition parties have been getting closer and closer together and, perhaps more worrying, the two parties have been in danger of swapping positions. This morning, we heard a profoundly conservative proposition from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and the Conservatives moved towards ever greater consultation, in line with Liberal Democrat leanings. Perhaps that reflects the curious boundary that puts the capital of true-blue Surrey county council in the London borough represented by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. I hope that that is not a portent of a blue and yellow merger—perhaps not. 
 If there are doubts about the current electoral trajectories of the two Opposition parties, I have no doubt about the upward personal trajectories of the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge and for Kingston and Surbiton, who led for their parties and impressed all members of the Committee. The work rate of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has been remarkable. He has shouldered the whole burden for the Conservative Opposition, with support from the hon. Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and for Taunton (Mr. Flook). The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge pressed his case and his amendments with great skill and fortitude, and demonstrated not only mastery of the often complex material, but considerable mental agility in reconciling often mutually contradictory propositions, which is always a great asset in this place. 
 The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton demonstrated once again his enthusiastic commitment to the policy of regional devolution and trod a reasonably judicious course between the Liberal Democrat enthusiasm for constant consultation, and the realistic approach that, to make things happen, one must stop consulting at some stage and reach decisions. I hope that his strong rightward shift this 
 morning is not a portent that the prospect of replacing the official Opposition is changing his principles. I leave the hon. Gentleman to consider that further. He has obviously been supported by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). 
 I greatly appreciate the hugely skilful and valuable support that I have had from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has demonstrated clearly why he is a rising star on the Government side of the House. I appreciate the support of our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), and of my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). I value the contributions that we have had from my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset, for Scarborough and Whitby and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). My hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and for Manchester, Blackley are not here at present, but they, too, contributed to the debate. 
 May I express my thanks to the Hansard note takers? They have recorded our proceedings with their usual consummate accuracy and skill, even if I have not yet found a sentence in the record that starts with the word ''but''. I also thank the officials, who as always have presided over our proceedings efficiently and ensured that our votes were managed effectively. 
 Above all, I thank you, Mr. Butterfill, for presiding over our affairs with wise oversight. I had not served under your chairmanship before this Committee, but I was told that you were always firm and fair, and you have completely confirmed that judgment. You allowed us a degree of discretion to range over subjects that were not strictly in line with a tight definition of what was in order, but you always stepped in firmly as soon as the borderline was crossed and brought us back to the straight and narrow. You also demonstrated a considerable commitment to duty, presiding over our affairs this morning after what was quite an arduous night for you on the Floor of the House. We thank you very much for that. We also thank Mr. Benton for his oversight of other sittings. I hope that you and he will enjoy a period of well deserved rest and relaxation over Christmas.

Philip Hammond: I noted with interest the Minister's comments about the appropriate word with which to start a sentence and I can assure him that we have not finished with that matter. I noted carefully what he said as reported in Hansard. I have written to the Minister for School Standards and I will be interested to see whether it will be Government policy that the English language should be used flexibly in a document as important as a piece of legislation.
 The Minister commented on the various positions taken by the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats. We have our differences in the two Opposition parties, but the Napoleonic tendencies of the Minister and his Government are in danger of uniting against him the freedom lovers in the Opposition. Those tendencies are sometimes unworthy of him. 
 I should like to say a word about Surrey county council and its commendable parsimony in deciding to 
 retain its existing headquarters, even though it is now outside Surrey, rather than do what a northern Labour metropolitan authority would no doubt have done and build a grandiose new establishment in a new location. I commend Surrey county council's attitude to the Committee. 
 The Opposition are enormously grateful to you, Mr. Butterfill and to Mr. Benton for your wise chairmanship of the Committee. You have been firm but fair. We are grateful to the Clerks who have served the Committee for their guidance and advice, which is particularly valued by Opposition Members who sometimes struggle to get amendments tabled in time and in an orderly form without the life support systems that Ministers enjoy. I record our thanks to both Ministers for the way that they have handled the issues that have been raised in this Committee, scoring points, or attempting to score points, when they needed to, but dealing with our questions courteously and with good humour. That has been greatly appreciated because it makes the Committee a much more enjoyable experience for everyone. 
 I thank my hon. Friends for their support, particularly, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West, without whose constant support beside me I would not have been able to move our many amendments. I also thank Government Back Benchers for their participation in our proceedings. One or two of them have been very helpful to the Opposition's arguments, sometimes intentionally and sometimes inadvertently. I have served on Standing Committees where the primary purpose of Government Back Benchers seems to have been the scoring of rather small debating points against the Opposition. By contrast, Opposition Members have engaged in a constructive way with the debate. That has made it a much more interesting Committee. Finally, I add my thanks to those of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to the Hansard reporters, the police, the staff of the House and everyone else who has made the Committee function smoothly and effectively.

Edward Davey: I start by thanking you, Mr. Butterfill and your colleague Mr. Benton for the way you have chaired our proceedings. My only concern is that the way that you steered our debate and gave it flexibility may have suggested to the Minister that you could be a future member of the boundary committee for England or some other boundary commission. Your dexterity and skill in quelling the different disputes between us recommends you for that difficult task.
 Both the Minister and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned that Surrey county council has its headquarters in my constituency. It has been welcomed there for a long time. We are pleased to keep it for a little longer. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that although Surrey county council may have tried to save money in the past, a private finance initiative deal is under consideration that would enable the headquarters to leave my constituency. We would welcome that, not because we have any bad feelings towards Surrey county council, but because Kingston 
 university, which is a university of international esteem and achievement, wants to expand. The premises that Surrey county council occupies could usefully be occupied by the university. I could go on—

Hon. Members: No!

Edward Davey: With respect to the Minister's comments on our suggestions I assure him that they do not indicate a rightward shift by me, or my party. The worrying thing for my colleagues may be that we are moving towards the Government's position of being over centralist in the way that we give too much power to the Secretary of State. However, the amendment was moved in the spirit of Christmas, not of Liberal Democrat beliefs.
 Both Ministers have been generous to the Committee in their answers and have approached the issue with unusual open mindedness. We hope that they will continue to do so on Report, and Third Reading and in their treatment of amendments that we hope will be made in the other place, as we have been unsuccessful in amending the Bill in Committee. I hope that the Ministers will think again about the arguments for the amendments and consider them when the measure returns to this House next year. 
 The Committee owes the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge thanks as he has shouldered the burden of the work for his party and for the Opposition parties in general. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and I have been diligent in our work, but it is clear from the record that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge has spoken for longer than any other member of the Committee. I do not know whether there is a new phrase ''Tory buts'' and how many there are, but according to the opinion polls, we are kicking a few. The hon. Gentleman is a rising star of the Conservatives, but he is aware that his party's star is on the way down. 
 I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow. This is his first Standing Committee although hon. Members would not have known that from the way that he undertook his responsibilities. I join with others in thanking the Hansard reporters, the police and all the staff who have helped us on our way and I wish everybody a very merry Christmas.

John Butterfill: It has been a great pleasure for me to chair the Committee, which has been conducted in an admirable way. The penetrating and thorough examination of the Bill was carried out in a professional and courteous manner and the Committee was very good natured, which made it much easier to chair. Congratulations to all of you.
 I was born in Kingston-upon-Thames nearly 62 years ago and I shall always regard it as part of Surrey. I wish all of you a very happy and merry Christmas and a prosperous new year. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill to be reported, without amendment. 
 Committee rose at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.